GM says Two Mode Hybrid System Trumps Competition

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Frank Hudon\";p=\"59644)</div>

very well said Frank. and you maybe spot on target with your prediction. many people dont realize that GM has had several drastic course corrections before and has always done very well. i do honestly hope that GM (well actually rooting much more for Ford since nearly half my family works for them) does well. i want to see great american products. i want to see great consumer products in every category from everyone. i simply cannot afford to buy junk at any price only to have to re-buy it elsewhere.

that said, i bought the Prius because i trust Toyota completely. its not because of my heritage. i was born in Okinawa and am "officially" considered half japanese, but anyone who knows a true Okinawan would know that the last thing we desire is to be associated with japan. we are inherently polar opposites. besides we are affliliated with japan only because of a broken promises of the US government. yes, we were treated about as fairly as the indians were.

Okinawans are peace-loving islanders with our own culture and customs. the japanese are much more aggressive and have had imperialistic tendencies they have demostrated for centuries. they have come to realize that they cannot take over countries by warfare anymore as they have done throughout their history, so the do it economically. that is why Toyota WILL BE the #1 auto maker in the world in 2006. they will stop at nothing to get there and they will. GM may improve, but it will be too little too late.

 

I am really surprised by the vitriol expressed in some of the above posts. Very unlike Prius Chat folks generally! Skepticism, yes! Vitriol, no! If GM really has something here, it would be good for everyone. More hybrid choices means more people driving more-efficient cars. And the SUVs and pickup trucks the article mentions won't be competing with the Prius. They'll be competing with conventional SUVs and pickups.

Does anyone really believe that people will quit buying Prius just because GM announces that in three years it will have an SUV that gets 15 mpg instead of 12? Of course not! Further, anyone who buys a hybrid because they understand something of the technology, will not be impressed by the Rube Goldberg design GM is hyping, and anyone who does not understand hybrids won't even read GM's explaination of why it's supposedly better. All they'll see is GM's claim to be "better," and that won't affect anyone, because on one side there's the folks who know the Japanese build better quality, and they will write off GM's claims as advertising lies; and on the other side there's the folks who hate the Japanese and won't buy a Japanese car no matter what. Then in the middle are those few who will read Consumer Reports and buy the car that rates better on the tests, and, over the long run, the reliability reports. So in the end, GM can't hurt Toyota unless they can make a better car. I don't think that's going to happen, but I would love it if they did, because that would improve the overall quality of cars, and everybody wins.

That said, I'm extremely skeptical. GM claims the motors will be smaller. So if they are smaller, how are they going to provide the drive power to propel the car in electric mode, or give significant assist during acceleration? And complexity is inversely proportional to reliability. The elegantly simple HSD design is the best on the road today, and Toyota is not likely to stand still. By 2007 the Prius will be a very different, and much better car.

 

I welcome any technology that achieves this purpose clearly stated on the homepage of my website: "To significantly reduce emissions & consumption in a reliable & cost-effective manner."

Some current hybrids don't. Some future hybrids won't either.

That recent article titled "Two-mode full hybrid system trumps competition" is misleading from the start. Then once you start reading, you encounter my favorite quote: "the hybrid technology that currently exists is already outdated and will likely be gone in a couple of years". I assume that's GM indirectly talking about their own so-called hybrid technology currently in Silverado. I find that quite amusing.

When you dig for details, you find the stated 25 percent efficiency improvement mention. What kind of nonsense is that? HSD already surpasses that value by a very large margin. So the "trump" claim doesn't make any sense, since it doesn't.

Their space-saving claim saying "today's typical single-mode systems that rely on much larger electric motors" is a total mystery. What the heck are they talking about? The motors in Prius are tiny components. How can reducing an already small device be that much of a benefit? There are so many other components that are a lot larger.

The fact that they are promoting the retention of a traditional automatic transmission is a bit of a farce. Both types of CVTs are proving to be a better choice. So why intentionally hold back, especially when it costs more.

Regardless of the technical nature of the design, this operational quote simply makes no sense: "Single-mode systems can't provide the range of operating efficiencies that our two-mode system can." What does that mean? Are the politely slamming the "assist" hybrid technology? There appears to be no operational difference compared to the "full" technology in HSD at all. This wouldn't be the first time they changed a definition so they could benefit too. Remember the "stop gap" claims? Their very own terminology from a few years ago would make them look bad now. So introducing "mode" does make sense from that perspective.

Whatever the case, it is vaporware until consumers in the 48 consecutive states have the opportunity to actually purchase it. In other words, credit should not be given until they finally deliver something.

 

GM stumbled a bit with predictions for the efficiency of it's hybrid bus design, though it is indeed cleaner and more reliable than conventional designs. See http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/12/se...le_diesel_.html Perhaps they will learn from it.

 

Their two mode hybrid design looks like GM's hybrid bus design. Let's analyze and find out the differences. Check out the video from MSN Auto link. http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?c...ehiclesCategory

In the article, they refered to it as a parallel hybrid design. The video said the transmission is smooth and without any shifting. Notice where the electric motor in the diagram when they explain regen braking. It looks like the electric motor is behind the transmission, before reaching the differential.

If the upcoming issue of SAE Automotive Engineering magazine has technical information of their design, I'll let you guys know the details.

Dennis

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco\";p=\"59966)</div>

A well said at you as well. I think that GM among others is behind the attacks on both Honda and Toyota, and to a lesser extent Ford because they bet the farm on hydrogen (and have a neat demo project) and it is not going to happen soon. They are doing everything they can to save their managerial posteriors and delay or they might have to answer to the share holders. It is spin, I would guess they will say anything. I also think they are turning their engineers loose and it may be interesting to see what they come up with, in 3 to 5 years.

 

Hybrid = 25% improvement

Just imagine the revolutionary consequences of such an improvement: a Ford Explorer that gets 25 mpg on the highway!

Seriously, though, that 25% figure is pretty close to the savings provided by the Prius's system. The Echo, with its 1.5 liter engine, is rated at 42 mpg on the EPA's highway test, and 125% of 42 is 52.5--about what you get in a Pruis if you're _extremely_ careful. Yes, the Echo is lighter than the Prius, but that 25% figure is still pretty close.

 

Step away from the gas-guzzler's tailpipe. Those fumes make you believe the anti-hybrid hype.

Comparing a vehicle that isn't even in the same class is misleading. Only looking at a single type of driving is asking for trouble. And not actually using real-world data will definitely lead to incorrect conclusions.

In reality, Prius delivers close to a 100% real-world improvement over the average of the same vehicle class type.

 

One man's reality is another's fantasy. If you compare the Prius to other "midsize" cars, you're comparing it to cars with 2 liter (or larger) engines that offer far better performance. The 2.4 liter, 4-cyl Camry, for example, is rated at 160 hp, while the 1.8 liter turbocharged Passat engine is rated at 170 hp.

The Prius's engines produce about 110 hp. The Echo's engine produces about 108 hp. I believe that is the apt comparison.

Consumer Reports's testers got 48 mpg from the Prius on their 150-mile trip test; they got 44 mpg from the Echo on the same test. Granted, the Pruis is 800 lbs heavier than the Echo, so the comparison isn't perfect, but it's much closer than comparing the Prius to the likes of the Camry, Passat, or Maxima.

 

do any of those have a bladder in the tank. If not, no comparrison. 5 fillup's on any of them have exceded the Prius emissions for a year. And you can bet your sisters first born that GM won't have a bladder in any of them either.

 

The Prius has a bladder? Back to the topic, however, I was talking about fuel economy--not emissions.

 

Skipping an entire class and focusing solely on just HP and a simple test-drive is not objective. Prius has far more in common with Camry, Passat, and Maxima than you are admitting.

Start by looking at a Corolla instead. It is much closer to Prius than Echo.

Then look at purpose & need. Emissions cannot be ignored, especially since it influences MPG. Then look at seating & cargo room. Then look at the quality of the components. Then look at safety.

When you are done, consider HSD itself, installed in the vehicle of your choice. It will happen sooner than you think.

 

Objective, is it? I'm providing data from a respected, independent source; you're making wild claims about "100% real-world improvement over the average of the same vehicle class type". Which one of us is "objective"?

But let's look at the Corolla:

CR reported getting 35 mpg on their 150 mile trip (1.8 liter 4-cyl; automatic). 35 * 1.25 = 43.75 (Prius territory). The Corolla had 20% greater displacement and 20 more horses (or was it 60 more horses--CR was vague on which 4-cyl engine they tested). The manual tranny on the Corolla would have done even better.

As for the (quite separate) question of emissions, why do you think I bought my Prius? I'm Green.

Your remarks about cargo room and quality of components are irrelevant, unless we're comparing cars on price. I'm not.

 

REAL-WORLD data means a minimum of one full year (all four seasons) of numbers generated by an actual owner. 150-mile measurements by a reporter are just spot-checks by the uninformed, a sampling for simple comparisons. Data from multiple sources (owners) is required too.

By the way, be careful when quoting statements. You actually misquoted me by not including the "close to". Measurements could safely go down to 90% without contention, not 100%. But it didn't sound that way from the reply.

 

Thank you, Objectivity, for being on our show today. You've been a really good sport. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

When the data don't suit, so much for the data. You might be interested (or not) in Edmunds's long term road test of the Prius. Their average mileage over 4,887 mi was 40.4 mpg, with their best tank yielding 48.1 mpg. But I suppose their experience is also invalid for some really good reason that you will think of really soon, now. All that is really important is Prius Boosterism.

From any data I have seen, it would seem that Toyota's hybrid system delivers about 25% in improved fuel economy. What I cannot figure is why you people seem to think that's so bad.